Is a drone on a string still a drone?

[frogs]

Just looking for opinions....

All the rules in the US seem to be predicated on the assumption that there is a big difference in danger levels once a flying object is not in contact with a person/operator. So no rules exist for helium balloons, or kites, or even U-control planes. (I would throw in quotes from federal code but you all know them.)

So my question is, what if in those places where I want just a nice family picture next to something that drones can't approach, can I tether the Mavic? That way it isn't legally a drone any more. It would be no more or less legal than a cellphone selfie stick. I think a lot of great pictures could be made at the end of just 100' of fishing line.

 

[4wd]

Good luck trying without getting it round a prop then crashing into your surprised-looking subjects.

 

[Qoncussion]

I'm thinking - if you ever ended up as a defendant in a courtroom, I seriously doubt that the string argument would hold up. Just sayin'...

 

[Kilrah]

I would hope not since tethering a Mavic would actually make it much more dangerous than it is without one.

 

[frogs]

OK, thanks for the thoughts. Tangles are a concern. I don't know what the prop wash would look like or if it cycles, so I might try an experiment (out in a hay field ?). I'm supposing the tether would always be under the Mavic and just blow any slack in the line downward. I'm not expecting to do fancy flying. All I want is to open up my photographic possibilities.

As for the defendant role... as often as people get convicted (or not) these days due to some lawyer weasel words, I think it is a legitimate question on the applicability of the laws. Not that I want to be the guinea pig.

Sorry I said no rule quotes, but....... I do see this rule as pretty specific: eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations .... the bit about what is an "unmanned aircraft"